From owner-freebsd-python@freebsd.org Fri Aug 5 11:42:42 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-python@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6060FBAF737 for ; Fri, 5 Aug 2016 11:42:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (unknown [127.0.1.3]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48CC31435 for ; Fri, 5 Aug 2016 11:42:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) id 482BBBAF736; Fri, 5 Aug 2016 11:42:42 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: python@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47D33BAF735 for ; Fri, 5 Aug 2016 11:42:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::16:76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C6651433 for ; Fri, 5 Aug 2016 11:42:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from bugs.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.118]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id u75Bgcb5013911 for ; Fri, 5 Aug 2016 11:42:41 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: python@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 210820] lang/python27: _ssl.so fails to build (Undefined symbol "SSLv2_method") Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2016 11:42:38 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Ports & Packages X-Bugzilla-Component: Individual Port(s) X-Bugzilla-Version: Latest X-Bugzilla-Keywords: needs-qa, patch, regression X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Many People X-Bugzilla-Who: koobs@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Status: Open X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: Normal X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: portmgr@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: maintainer-feedback+ maintainer-feedback? merge-quarterly? X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: flagtypes.name bug_severity cc assigned_to keywords priority Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-python@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD-specific Python issues List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2016 11:42:42 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D210820 Kubilay Kocak changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|maintainer-feedback?(python |maintainer-feedback+, |@FreeBSD.org) |maintainer-feedback?(portmg | |r@FreeBSD.org) Severity|Affects Only Me |Affects Many People CC| |python@FreeBSD.org Assignee|python@FreeBSD.org |portmgr@FreeBSD.org Keywords| |patch Priority|--- |Normal --- Comment #13 from Kubilay Kocak --- (In reply to Fukang Chen from comment #10) Escalating to portmgr@ (see below) @portmgr please advise if/what workarounds might be available to python@ to resolve the issue in lang/python* ports until the root cause can be fixed permanently. @Fukang, can you include that test matrix (pastebin) as an attachment so it doesn't get lost (or missed) please. Notes: The CFLAGS modification workaround is not a root-cause fix, as it doesn't resolve the expected/actual runtime library discrepancy (uses base, not por= ts). To be clear, it appears thus far from the evidence provided, that this is t= he result of a conflict caused by the interaction between framework ncurses/ssl bits, relating to base vs ports rpath arguments, exposed by the move from Mk/bsd.foo.mk to Uses/foo.mk. It also appears that this is not strictly, or= in principle limited to python, nor ssl and ncurses only, but has a much wider potential for impact. Q: What other existing base vs ports cases could highlight the same issue? Q: Does swapping ssl/ncurses in USES not just reverse the problem in the ca= se of base ssl and ports ncurses? If not, why not? --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. You are on the CC list for the bug.=